February 9, 2010

... the percentage of married people ages 35 to 44 has declined precipitously over the last 40 years: from 88 percent of men and 87 percent of women in 1960 to 66 percent of men and 67 percent of women in 2005. Since first marriages after age 45—when a woman’s fertile years are finished—are statistically rare, almost everyone who is ever going to marry is already married by that age. The percentage of children growing up in fatherless families—a chief risk factor for social pathologies—has risen concomitantly: from 9 percent of all households with children in 1960 to 26 percent today. On the plus side of the ledger, these negative trends don’t affect the college-educated as severely. College-educated women have significantly higher rates of marriage and lower rates of divorce than women without college degrees. The bad news is that such women, who tend to marry late, have far fewer children. In 2004, according to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, 24 percent of women ages 40 to 44 with bachelor’s degrees were childless, in contrast to 10 percent of women without a high school diploma. Marriage is slowly becoming a preserve of the elite, who pay a price in severely reduced fertility. ...

Some argue, though, that it is actually beta men who are the greatest victims of the current mating chaos: the ones who work hard, act nice, and find themselves searching in vain for potential wives and girlfriends among the hordes of young women besotted by alphas. That is the underlying message of what is undoubtedly the most deftly written and also the darkest of the seduction-community websites, the blog Roissy in DC. Unlike his confreres, Roissy does not sell books or boot camps, and his site carries no ads. He also blogs anonymously, or at least tries to. (Purported photos of Roissy circulating on the Internet show a tall unshaven man in his late 30s with piercing blue eyes and good, if somewhat dissolute, looks.) ...

If Roissy has anything resembling a mentor, it is F. Roger Devlin. Trained as a political philosopher—he has a doctorate from Tulane—Devlin holds no academic post, and his oeuvre, besides a published version of his doctoral thesis on Alexandre Kojève, consists of a series of essays and reviews concerning relations between the sexes for the Occidental Quarterly, a paleoconservative publication whose other contributors tend to focus obsessively on the question of which ethnic groups belong to which race.

“The sexual revolution in America was an attempt by women to realize their own [hypergamous] utopia, not that of men,” Devlin wrote. Beta men become superfluous until the newly liberated women start double-clutching after years in the serial harems of alphas who won’t “commit,” lower their standards, and “settle.” During this process, monogamy as a stable and civilization-maintaining social institution is shattered. “Monogamy is a form of sexual optimization,” Devlin told me. “It allows as many people who want to get married to do so. Under monogamy, 90 percent of men find a mate at least once in their life.” This isn’t necessarily so anymore in today’s chaotic combination of polygamy for lucky alphas, hypergamy in varying degrees for females depending on their sex appeal, and, at least in theory, large numbers of betas left without mates at all—just as it is in baboon packs. The aim of Mystery-style game is to give those betas better odds."

I'm getting the feeling that women and the MSM are starting to tune in to the PUA community. Should be fun to watch how this develops.

Over at the Spearhead, which has vastly exceeded my expectations, they're reporting that the feminist response is that men who use Game to bed women are committing fraud, ie rape.

The whole PUA thing has left me with world record levels of ambivalence: on one hand, it works, women are fairly evil, and sex is fun. On the other, these guys seem just a little too happy with the decline of western civilization which allows them to do what they do.

I think if you gave Roissy and every one of those guys a button which could make feminism and cultural marxism and all that bad stuff disappear, they wouldn't push it, they're quite happy with the status quo.

Roissy himself is in his 40d, still single, and clearly spent decades as a frustrated "beta" type, building up resentment against women. He can hardly write two sentences before his bitterness about the opposite sex comes out. These guys are too damaged to understand the difference between realism and bitterness.

The main problem of beta males in a free or liberalized society is they are too timid to ask a girl out on a date. Beta males would do better in a traditional system where marriages were arranged by parents or by group pressure.

The Alpha/Beta comparison, while amusing, is a false dichotomy. Most men embody a variety of traits and can't be easily pigeonholed. I think most people visualize it as jocks vs pencil-necked geeks. Stop with this pecking order nonsense, turn off the National Geographic channel. Most men look ridiculous in a loincloth.

Youre old subject Uncle-Tim Wise wrote a letter-to-the-editor today in "The Tennessean" newspaper. I thought you'd get a kick out of reading it:http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100209/OPINION02/100208029/1053

Comments (6) Recommend (2) Print As someone who grew up in Nashville, I always wondered why the city and its schools (from which I graduated in 1986) paid such little homage to its civil rights legacy.

As students we took field trips to all kinds of places: The Hermitage (home of the infamous Indian-killer and ethnic “cleanser” Andrew Jackson), the War Memorial Building, where we could commemorate, well, war and even the old Satsuma tea room, because someone thought it was important. But never did we study the local heroes whose sit-ins helped bring down formal apartheid in this city and nation.That Nashville still fails to honor these brave men and women 50 years later, in any concerted way, is historically obscene. I hope the efforts to remember, teach about and carry on the legacy of these freedom fighters will finally gain the support of this “progressive” city.

During the civil rights struggle, Nashville thought itself quite a bit better than other Southern cities: less racist, more enlightened and intellectual. Yet virtually all the places we considered backward by comparison are years ahead in remembering their roles in the freedom movement.

This so-called Alpha-Beta model for dividing the personalities of males needs to be discarded. It's a load of crock, as false and pernicious as Bettelheim's theory of "refrigerator moms" or Freud's "Xanatos Impulse," among others.

It does not even follow the true definition of alpha and beta males in the Animal Kingdom. Alphas are leaders and guardians of the whole herd or pack, in addition to their breeding duties. Betas are aspiring alphas, not supplicant toads who allow others to walk over them. Indeed, an older alpha will often find himself challenged by a bold beta, a challenge that could well end in death for one party or both.

These cads and gigolos who are labeled alpha are not leaders by any standard, and instead sow discord among the community. People like Whiskey and Roissy show their profound ignorance every time they open their mouths or use their keyboards. They are propagandists as vile as any of the other radicals they profess to combat. Ignore them if possible, denounce them when neccessary, for they are shaping the discussion in an unproductive and false manner.

Oh good gawd. Enough about that TWERP Roissy. The guy lives in DC of all places. The easiest city to pick up transient, unrooted, strident, Type A, hussies in the US. A normal guy could get more a$$ than a toilet seat- no “game” required. A nihilistic, semi-clever manboy.

The guy couldn’t carry a real man’s jockstrap. OK, he posts some occasionally insightful and timely obsrvations but it’s more piling on “me too”. He’s probably a typical DC slicky boy, gym rat, WIMP. Never served in the military, let alone the combat arms or combat aviation. Never started a company, nor employed anybody.Couldn’t start and raise a normal family. Typical DC gym rat uber-cube dweller.

Doesn’t make an impact on the real world. The reason he posts as anonymous is. .. he’s anonymous. Despite all his posturing, he’s the beta of all betas. No deep thoughts, no impact on society- poof, he’s gone.

Of all the internet commentators on the issue, I think Jason Malloy has the most accurate perspective. I'd also note that the scientist who introduced the term "alpha male" as applied to wolves now thinks it was a mistake due to the lack of data in the wild.

"Paleoconservative" would not the word I'd first choose to describe TOQ (that might be closer to describing The Last Ditch, where Devlin is also published). Surprised it's referenced so favorably in the Weekly Standard though. I'm not surprised that WS ran this kind of story, they already did one earlier on what Will Wilkinson dubbed "The Menaissance and its Dickcontents".

...the Occidental Quarterly, a paleoconservative publication whose other contributors tend to focus obsessively on the question of which ethnic groups belong to which race...

TOQ re-printed Tenney Frank's "Race Mixture in the Roman Empire" in their Winter 2005-2006 issue; it's the single most fascinating piece of archaeological sociology that I have ever encountered in my life.

I strongly urge everyone to get a copy of it and read it - hell, memorize it [it basically confirms everything that Spengler used to conjecture about at the old Asia Times, before he decided to become a partisan Zionist and lose his focus in the ebb and flow of current events].

Think of male sexual attractiveness and success as a bell curve with three regions: above average tail, average hump, and below average tail. Well, the above average tail are the alphas, the hump of the bell are the betas, and the unsuccessful tail are the omegas.

(The distribution is in terms of numbers and hotness of women attracted to them.)

Think of male sexual attractiveness and success as a bell curve with three regions: above average tail, average hump, and below average tail. Well, the above average tail are the alphas, the hump of the bell are the betas, and the unsuccessful tail are the omegas.

We get what you are trying to say, but that's not what "alphas" mean in a sociological sense. If you picked three different words you'd be golden.

What ever happened to having a few drinks, getting some "liquid courage" and asking girls out until you get a "yes."

I tend to think this "alpha/beta" stuff is overblown since a bunch of nerds can now log onto the internet and whine about their poor romantic prospects, whereas before they had no outlet (hence, there is a bias on the internet).

Nerds always had poor dating prospects. This is not something new.

What is new is that "hook up" (i.e., one-night stands) culture has tended to benefit some men more than others.

Thank you Harmonious Jim. The A-B-O spectrum is real. Every guy knows an Alpha Male when they see him. Every women wants them and every guy wants to be like him. Maybe a problem is the way 'Beta Male' is a used as a term for 'non-Alpha' and is inadvertedly used when 'Omega' should be used. Chances are a lot of guys who complain that they are a 'hapless Beta' are, in fact, outright Omega males.

Every guy knows an Alpha Male when they see him. Every women wants them and every guy wants to be like him.

No. No, no, no.

You people keeping mixing up the real meaning of "alpha" with the PUA meaning of it.

In the PUA scene it means " a guy who gets laid a lot with many different women". But such guys are very frequently the exact opposite of "alpha" in the "leader of men" sense. A lot of guys who are "alphas" in the PUA sense are low-life no-good bums in the "natural leader who is admired by men" sense.

How come modern women can't ask guys out? I was never taught how to deal with women. The all boys Catholic school ruined me. It built women up too much as being something "special" which they are not. If you miss out on getting secure with yourself with women in high school you will have a harder time. But in this society many women and men don't feel the pressure to marry. There is no stigma to being a ladies man who sleeps around and there is no such thing as a slut now.

People who have no social skills and are pathalogically shy are better off in a match making society.

I never saw any younger women in church, all old ladies.

I guess I'll never get married now according to the article. I'm over 40. At least I won't have to put up with a woman nagging me just so I can get it once every week or 2.

I may be alone,but at least I am not in a terrible marriage and have to worry about taking care of kids who will then grow up to be unhappy as well.

Check out the Coalpha Brotherhood by googling it. It's aim is to start a new society within the US.

That's one of the best pieces of journalism I've read in a long time by someone not surnamed Sailer. She really ties together a lot of the various concerns of the HBD sphere--the pernicious effects of the feminist movement, the efficacy of Game, the overarching relevance of evolutionary psychology--and she even hints at the dysgenic effects of this new mating system. It is a fantastic synthesis bordering on the profound.

If I could be so presumptuous as to offer Ms. Allen some career advice: Forget about the dissertation in medieval and Byzantine studies! You could do a lot more good with your time on earth by chronicling the degeneracy of modern America.

I thought Christianity prohibited divorce and remarriage? Newt Gingrich can get married in the Catholic Church after all his marriages and affairs, but a Catholic who gets divorced can never get married again and has to be alone? What a joke the church is.Complete trash.

The alpha/beta continuum with regards to dating doesn't overlap a whole lot with other traits. The alpha example is usually a tall good looking banker type - but in my experience, tall and good looking is enough, and banker doesn't help much if you don't have the other two. The most successful guy I know in the dating field has been that way since he was 18, and has played catch and release with the hottest women during phases when he was in college or a ski bum or an engineer. But in other fields of endeavor - career wise, or even intellect he's fairly average. Likewise, I know top-MBA types who just fail around women, and when they do get one hold on for dear life.

Game really isn't much more than trained machoism. It's a sign of the pendulum swinging back. It's not OK any more to share your feelings - let them guess. It's OK to deflect probing questions from a woman. It's OK to puff yourself up as much as you can, to dress sharp instead of grunge, to toot your own horn a bit. That's a good lesson for most men these days.

But look at how hard life is for an Alpha, always worried about losing status. Twenty years after graduation many former Alphas have gone bald and gained fifty pounds, sliding down into Omegaville. The humiliation, the anguish must be beyond description. The Betas, though, just keep on chugging along like the energizer bunny. The meek shall inherit the earth.

Excellent article by Charlotte Allen, although deeply depressing. I also have problems with the "alpha, beta..." typology because it gives a scientific patina to what is largely nonsense.

At least Roissy limits his definition of "alpha" to cover men who can get laid easily. This avoids coming to terms with the other manifestations of "alpha" qualities, such as leadership of other men, courage and a host of other traits, many of which women don't have a vote on. It also tilts the playing field to favor men with money and power. Regardless of how useless they may otherwise be, these men are catnip for money and status whores.

OK, who gets laid? Well Tiger Woods, for example. But Tiger didn't have the balls to ask out the woman who became his wife (got someone else to do it), gets his ass kicked by his wife and then runs away when the shit hits the fan. This is alpha behavior? Look, any clown get get laid with a fistful of hundreds in a whorehouse. Tiger's trix were/are whores. He is NOT alpha. Not all women are whores pace Roissy, Mystery et. al.

But aren't women hard-wired to roll with dominant men, you know the Paleolithic and all that? Maybe some are, but dominance can be expressed by superior intelligence, a stash of knowledge as well as physical traits suggesting power, not merely by the numbers on your W-2 form.

And where are the women on this site? You all do the choosing of partners -- this is all about you. Curvaceous, Dahlia, Cordelia, Victoria, all of you -- I want to hear what you think.

As long as the PUAsphere makes it clear that their use of alpha and beta has no relation to traditional definitions in animal studies, it doesn't bother me. Roissy at least does define the term for his use, rephrasing it is roughly

alpha = man who's sure of his sexual options, for him sexual access to women is a free flowing natural resource;beta = man whose insecure about his sexual options, tends to desparation in searching and clinging behavior in relationships that repells women;omega = man with no sexual options, liable to be unwillingly celibate or pay for sex.

And I've said before (and will again). The book and workshop guys are doing god's own work to the extent that they help most of their customers rid themselves of woman-repelling features that they don't realize they have. Mystery says most of his students are looking for girlfriends, not to be full time philanderers and I believe him.

Overall I'm not that worried about the society destroying potential of PUAs for one simple reason - most heterosexual men cannot keep up (no pun intended) long term promiscuity PUA style*. Those who can tend to be sociopaths who simply don't have the same need for relationships that the rest of us do and are comfortable manipulating people for their own amusement. That's a small minority of guys. Most men will screw around some then try to settle down.

Meanwhile, there are interesting tidbits in the comments at Roissy's. Amidst the posturing and general misogyny and ass slaps some commenters manage to sum up ideas in interesting ways.

A couple of my favorites (no citations, working from memory). These probably aren't new or unique ideas but they were put forth in memorable ways.

- Women are not attracted to smart and funny guys, but want to think they are. So, they simply label the guys they are attracted to as 'smart and funny' no matter how dumb and dull they are.

- Ghetto men raised by single moms tend to combine all the worst traits of men (violent, unthinking behavior) and women (social pettiness and grudge holding).

*men can maintain longterm promiscuity when no special artifice is required, but for straight men looking for non-commercial sex artifice, and lots of it, is definitely required.

TOQ re-printed Tenney Frank's "Race Mixture in the Roman Empire" in their Winter 2005-2006 issue; it's the single most fascinating piece of archaeological sociology that I have ever encountered in my life.

Wasn't the race-mixing in the Roman Empire for the most part intra-Caucasian?

Ignoring the very real disinvestment (and lack of reproduction, effectively with late marriage if at all) of beta males is puzzling from the HBD crowd. The very same folks who argue, persuasively, that average IQ and genes matter, want to pretend that massive selecting out of various traits in the Middle and Working class White population won't have any effect. Or that massive selection FOR the various traits associated with successful reproduction: low future time orientation, low self-control, high libido, and so on won't have an immediate and massive effect.

That's pretty funny. People here like to pretend that "the Black Ghetto just happened" or was always that way, when the truth is that Black negative success behaviors become super-charged over time, just as British lower class White behaviors did, for the same reason: unrestrained female hypergamy, leading to both social and genetic outcomes associated with violence, lack of education, and poverty.

It is not feminism or cultural marxism that caused female hypergamy. Rather, it was technology (cheap reliable contraception) plus anonymous urban living (no "calling women sluts" by a tight knit social group) and vastly improved female living standards and social freedom (in itself, a net plus) that caused the Whiskey-geddon and Cultural Marxism and feminism as side-effect justifications for the already existing negative outcomes.

NOTHING in life comes without a catch. This is one of them, simple as that. Since it is driven by technology that can't be outlawed, and permanent deep social changes, we will simply have to live with White working and middle classes acting pretty much like Black Ghetto people, as already has happened in Britain's White working (and now Middle classes).

Let me add, the Alpha-Beta dichotomy is very, very real. The New York Times had a piece on "the New Math on Campus." Basically, below the Ivies, the sex ratio is 60-40 Women to men. EVEN with these odds, women don't adjust:------Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool. “Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent,” she said....Needless to say, this puts guys in a position to play the field, and tends to mean that even the ones willing to make a commitment come with storied romantic histories. Rachel Sasser, a senior history major at the table, said that before she and her boyfriend started dating, he had “hooked up with a least five of my friends in my sorority — that I know of.”...As for a man’s cheating, “that’s a thing that girls let slide, because you have to,” said Emily Kennard, a junior at North Carolina. “If you don’t let it slide, you don’t have a boyfriend.”...Indeed, there are a fair number of Mr. Lonelyhearts on campus. “Even though there’s this huge imbalance between the sexes, it still doesn’t change the fact of guys sitting around, bemoaning their single status,” said Patrick Hooper, a Georgia senior. “It’s the same as high school, but the women are even more enchanting and beautiful.”----------What are actual, real-life College girls saying?

1. They don't adjust downward. Female hypergamy is hard-wired and even when there is a man shortage they want the top 20%.

2. Women don't find "sharing" a barrier -- they find it validation. The woman whose boyfriend slept with five of her friends, could easily date someone else. She chose validation of the most successful because it meant other women felt enough of him to sleep with him. Women don't mind sharing, since they do indeed share, as long as the guy is "Alpha."

3. Women let cheating by Alphas slide as long as its not too humiliating.

4. The non-top 20% of guys are locked out, EVEN with favorable gender ratios.

Yeah, Alpha-Beta matter. Christian girls? Puhlease! Note this is UNC, filled with nice conservative Christian Southern girls. Christian girls are no different than any other. They WANT a relationship. But they want it with the most Alpha guy in the room. Which means, in effect:

A. The most commanding, socially dominant presence.B. The most playful, bantering, cocky-arrogant behavior, basically Tucker Max.C. Preferably fame or some sort of marker that denotes superior social status to other men.

Even a tall, good shape and intelligent guy in say finance or marketing, but working in a cubicle, at age 25 could easily spend 5-6 years basically celibate. The College girl that goes home with Tucker Max, does so because he's a minor celebrity that plays the room. How many guys does that account for? The guys building their career, can spend a good deal of time alone, because they lack the ability to dominate a room. Just going over and saying hi won't cut it when women AUTOMATICALLY only want the top 20% THAT OTHER WOMEN WANT. [This is basically the subtext of "500 Days of Summer."]

On the margins, a few guys who study Game can basically make a personality do-over to fake the perception that other women want them. But will have huge difficulties like Strauss and Mystery and others in maintaining that facade over a relationship. At best, a few beta types marry women who despise them as provider "Kitchen Bitches" and end up with one designer yuppie baby, followed by a quickie divorce, if that. Increasingly, women are choosing single motherhood, with sperm donors or anonymous hook-ups over even THAT.

Older guys don't have a clue. The WS article cites: "A survey reported in the New York Daily News around the time of the film’s release revealed that the typical female resident of Manhattan, who marries later on average than almost every other woman in the country, has 20 sex partners during her lifetime. By way of contrast, the median number of lifetime sex partners for all U.S. women ages 15 to 44 is just 3.3, according to the Census Bureau’s latest statistical abstract." To be realistic, add about 7-10 for the Manhattan women, and about 3-4 for the women in the rest of the nation. Given that women typically under-report partners (and men over-report them).

Women, per the WS and NYT article, don't date. They have sex first, "to lock it down" with the Alpha stud, who is desired by other women, and then they HOPE to have a relationship. So a decent, average guy is screwed if he is not in the lucky 20% that other women want. This has significant consequences.

First, it cements male under-achievement and lack of investment or caring in society. Women and children are something for the stud Alpha male. Second, it pretty much guarantees a wave of single motherhood. Mating success with only 20% of the men is a guarantee of replicating the Black Ghetto in White America. As Steve here has noted extensively (quoting Obama's biography), under Segregation and before the sexual revolution, even the Black ghettos were places where kids could safely play. As Dalrymple notes, in East London in his 1950's childhood, doors were routinely unlocked and he played outside.

[Women's idea of "Alpha Male" is different from men's. Bill Gates, General Petraeus, Mack Brown, and Peyton Manning are men's ideas of Alpha males: leaders of men, who achieve difficult tasks and form successful patronage networks. Women's ideas of Alpha males are: the Situation, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and guys from the "Bachelor." Defined solely by how many women find them arousing. There can be overlap, such as Tom Brady, but generally the two are distinct.]

Final add: feminists and women find PUA "rape" because it allows a Joe Average guy to successfully impersonate a guy that 50 other women slept with, and thus validated as worthy.

That is their only beef. That women would sleep with a guy who is not a true "Alpha" that is, desired by other women.

Its akin to calling "rape" a woman getting breast implants (which are themselves silly and stupid) and "tricking" a man into sex, but there it is. More evidence as if it was needed of women's deep-rooted hypergamy getting out of control.

"Rape" extended to tricking a woman into thinking more women find the guy hot than actually is the case.

Befor females had "careers", a fellow with a job looked like a good catch, beta or not.--

Uh, yeah, no-brainer here -

... However, since attraction is BASED on the dynamics of power between a man and woman, it would be LUDICROUS to ignore the effect of these social developments on the situation between men and women today. ESPECIALLY when you consider that MOST MEN are ACTING toward women AS IF THEY WERE STILL LIVING IN 1951.

Let me tell you something:That behavior has only become a formula for disaster in the last couple of generations.

You see, in 1951, if you saw a woman on the street, or in a shop, and you complimented her, you would NOT be immediately categorized as UNDESIRABLE "DESPERATE GEEK".

Why?

Because the average man relative to the average woman was far more powerful. He earned the bulk if not all of the money, he had far more rights and privileges, etc. Also, there was really no such mainstream activity called "dating for fun". In general people married far, far earlier, they were dating for marriage. (Of course there were exceptions to the rule, but I am talking about in general.)

This meant that women were thinking about a man's long term qualities as well as his "sexiness". It was not a "singles culture" like today, where nothing need last more than a day. Okay, so do you see what is going on here?

Since men were far more powerful relative to women than today, "nice" behavior was interpreted far differently. Buying a woman flowers on a first date, or chocolates, or even telling her "I love you" after just a few weeks was not the KISS OF DEATH that it is TODAY.

TODAY, women already have TONS of power - education, careers, politics, etc. PLUS, most men have bought into the "GUILT TRIP" that men are BAD, nothing but sex hounds, who are just trying to use women. So we end up with men who are kissing women's asses, in order to "PROVE" that they are not the psychos that women have made us out to be.

We end up with a culture where men are made to look like sex-crazed morons and of course the women appear as almost indifferent to men. (Just watch some tv commercials and you tell me what you think.)

MEN ARE NOW KISSING WOMEN'S BUTTS, and YET, SIMULTANEOUSLY women have actually made MORE PROGRESS than EVER before in history.... What is happening is a POWER SHIFT that, when combined with the butt-kissing behavior toward women….renders most men very UNSEXY. Today, when your average man meets a woman, he actually VOLUNTARILY gives away ALL HIS POWER and ALL HIS "CARDS" and ALLOWS the woman to KEEP ALL HER POWER and all her "cards". And then men go around wondering why it's so damn hard to meet a woman who respects them today.

Think about it.

When a man treats a woman as if it's 1951, by acting as if she is penniless and powerless and as if she needs his fancy restaurant dinners, his chocolates, flowers, and his favors….when in reality it's 2003…his behavior is UNATTRACTIVE and simply BEGGING TO BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF.

And guess what?

There's more, there's a WHOLE OTHER DIMENSION to this stuff. Not only are most men kissing up to women in a world where women find this now ABSURD and pathetic of men, but something far more subtle, and latent, is occurring. ...

I'm in two minds as to whether this is a profound alteration in the structure of society or not. I agree to some extent with Whiskey that those of us who find genetic and/or primal explanations for social outcomes - nature not nuture - can hardly dismiss this paleolithic trend. Yet I also think that a bunch of guys who spend their life obsessing over how to get a woman are pitiable losers who invite ridicule by describing themselves as alphas. However one thing is certain - it validates Tom Wolfe as ahead of the curve on another social trend. Just as Bonfire became repeatedly played out in the real world, it seems so too with Charlotte Simmons. Hooking up indeed.

"Roissy himself is in his 40d, still single, and clearly spent decades as a frustrated "beta" type, building up resentment against women"

Good for him and all of us. Resentment has been the foundation of the 20th century's most powerful political and social movements. Perhaps Roissy or one of his followers can write the masculinist equivalent of The Feminine Mystique, What is to be Done?, The LIttle Red Book (Quotations from Chairperson Roissy), or Mein Kampf. I, for one, look forward to the social transformation caused by righteous, for once and for a change, resentment.

It is not feminism or cultural marxism that caused female hypergamy. Rather, it was technology (cheap reliable contraception) plus anonymous urban living (no "calling women sluts" by a tight knit social group) and vastly improved female living standards and social freedom (in itself, a net plus) that caused the Whiskey-geddon and Cultural Marxism and feminism as side-effect justifications for the already existing negative outcomes.

You Scots-Irish sure have a blind spot about cultural Marxism. You do realize that 'technology' is relative, people have been urbanized for millenia, and have been practicing birth control for at least as long?

Government as Social Democratic Sugar Daddy is practically the only reason things are the way they are. When the social safety net is Tribe and Creed, it's a whole different dynamic.

Maybe you ought to start tooting that horn, instead of calling for young men to be dispersed all over the globe while the cultural and territorial integrity of their own patria is being breached.

Starker said: "And where are the women on this site? You all do the choosing of partners -- this is all about you. Curvaceous, Dahlia, Cordelia, Victoria, all of you -- I want to hear what you think."

Well, I'm probably the wrong woman to ask for a couple of reasons: 1) I'm at least a generation older than all the youngsters 'round here (like Whiskey) -- I'm a member of the Grunge or X Generation -- so no doubt I'm out of touch with what all the kids are up to these days; plus I've been outta the dating market for, oh, 16 years now(!); and 2) I'm a geek girl and so I don't understand the average woman much better than you guys do! I do have a little more insight being a woman, of course -- but I'm really not into gossip or fashion or girl-cliques -- at least not as much as most women are anyway. ;-)

But, I do have an opinion on Game, and that is that I hate Game. And I mean I LOATHE it. Pretty much as much as I hate feminism, and I never thought I would hate anything as much as feminism! Mind you, I also hated "The Rules", too, for anyone old enough to remember those.

I hated "The Rules" and I hate Game -- and feminism, too, come to think of it -- all for the same reason -- 'cause these strategies are encouraging people to be fake, and I HATE fake. (Yeah -- I also hate boob jobs and botox and all that, too.)

I agree that a lot of the evo psych stuff that has been incoporated into Game is correct. There are definitely innate intellectual and behavioral differences between men and women -- and the two sexes have differing, often conflicting, interests when it comes to reproducing. And, the feminist revolution + the political correctness of today seems to have really screwed up the mating game in a way that, yes, women can now afford to focus their efforts on alpha males (either actual ones or Roissy-alphas) at the expense of so-called beta males.

But, what I can't understand is, why are the beta males struggling so much out there ONLY focusing their efforts on the flakey women who are only interested in Roissy-alpha males?! There ARE other kinds of women out there who are NOT interested in Roissy-alpha males!

I know Whiskey likes to say that ALL women are ONLY interested in Roissy-alpha males but I KNOW that's not true. I was NEVER interested in Roissy-alphas, nor were any of the girls in my circle of friends. In my circle of five girlfriends, all save one married either firemen or policemen (we were working class girls) -- I'm the odd one out -- married a science geek. So, unless ALL American women have changed in a single generation, there must be SOME women out there who would be interested in dating & marrying so-called beta males (like I did) or genuine alpha males (like my girlfriends did).

Also, geeks like Whiskey oughta know better -- there will always be variation with any group, otherwise there would be nothing for natural (or sexual) selection to work on, right? So, there MUST be SOME women out there who are interested in real alphas/so-called betas. There must be. (cont.)

But, I acknowledge, they might be few and far between. Women, as a group, are pretty flakey. And the feminist revolution does seem to have made it possible for women to focus their attentions on alphas, either real or the Roissy version. This is a problem, I agree. And it does need to be fixed somehow because Western society NEEDS its so-called beta males to reproduce. So-called beta males are the ones that made Western society great. All the science and engineering and advances in medicine and what not -- all done by so-called beta males (as you all know!). So, we gotta make sure you guys keep reproducing!

But, it still bothers me to think of so-called beta males going out there and adopting Game as their strategy. I understand that guys are trying to use Game not just to get laid, but also to get married. But, what kind of marriage is THAT -- built on lies (i.e. the presentation of a false personality)?? Not the sort of marriage I'd want to be in.

Why not seek out more genuine girls who might only be cute, not really hot? You might find them in church like one commenter suggested. Or, you might find them in academia (*ahem*)! (But probably not in a sorority.) Or, here's a very dorky suggestion -- don't scoff at it without trying it -- go dancing! And by dancing I mean social dancing. Take some classes in swing. You'll find lots of girls who are looking for a guy -- and not looking for a Roissy-alpha! I know Steve isn't big on the whole dancing thing, but really -- social dancing really brings together lots of great evo-psych things: the men get to LEAD, for instance -- the women follow. ;-)

Also, you might want to think about getting out of the big cities if that's where you are. Smaller cities and towns = more traditional.

Not solutions to the bigger problem, obviously -- just some small suggestions.

Whiskey said: "Female hypergamy is hard-wired and even when there is a man shortage they want the top 20%."

Male hypergamy seems to be equally hard-wired from what I can see.

Not all men, of course, but a heckuva lot of men "trade-up" when they can. Think of all the OJs and Tiger Woodses trading-up to a white, blonde wife. Not to mention all you so-called beta boys who only seem to be focused on the hot-but-flakey women!

Whiskey said: "Female hypergamy is hard-wired and even when there is a man shortage they want the top 20%."

Male hypergamy seems to be equally hard-wired from what I can see.

Not all men, of course, but a heckuva lot of men "trade-up" when they can. Think of all the OJs and Tiger Woodses trading-up to a white, blonde wife. Not to mention all you so-called beta boys who only seem to be focused on the hot-but-flakey women!

"Curvaceous, Dahlia, Cordelia, Victoria, all of you -- I want to hear what you think."

Well, I'm happily married to what Roissy would probably label a "beta provider."

I LIKE the fact that my husband works hard, is high-IQ, has interesting subjects to talk about and wants to spend time with me. And married sex is just fun. Who wants to feel used? But then, again, I'm in flyover country and I didn't attend an "elite" school back east where silly girls are brainwashed to think promiscuity / whorish behavior is hip or cool or anything other than just icky and soul-sucking.

Whiskey, if you really do want to get married, you should move. Like my mother said, you don't fish for trout in a herring barrel. Move to a small city and be friendly to the middle-aged lady next door or at the supermarket or work. YOU may not know where the nice girls are, but SHE does. Pay her a compliment, do her a favor, because if she likes you, she might be willing to introduce you to her daughter or niece or best friend's daughter.

Middle-aged ladies LIVE to play matchmaker, and THEY aren't into silly alpha-status games. THEY know what really constitutes a good man, and they'll do the work of "selling you" to her FOR you.

Wasn't the race-mixing in the Roman Empire for the most part intra-Caucasian?

Well it depends on who the "Oriental" people were [and whether or not they were "Caucasian"].

Presumably these Orientals were from places like Carthage and Alexandria and greater Syria [modern-day Aramaic Syrians and Lebanese Christians and Israeli Jews].

But Frank's point is that they were NOT of Roman blood*.

And of utmost importance to the topic at hand [concerning the unfruitfulness of fellows like Devlin and Roissy who continue to engage in purposeless fornication well into their forties], what Frank painstakingly documents is that the native Romans simply stopped making babies altogether [more or less exactly as Spengler conjectured they must have, in his old essays at the Asia Times - cf eg here and here].

*Now cue the bloody warfare over whether the classical Romans were Italian**, whether the modern Jews are Caucasian, etc etc etc...

A) To the extent that "Game" simply* reminds Y-Chromosomers that they need to start acting like men again, and especially that they need to make it clear to their women just who it is who wears the pants in the relationship, "Game" is a good thing.

C) What these guys like Devlin & Roissy need to realize is that women have no inherent sense of morality, and that if they are not taught morality [by the men in their lives, like Devlin & Roissy], then they will never learn morality [and the purposeless fornication will go on and on and on and there will be no live births and the population will collapse and the civilization will go extinct].

D) In that regard, I would be shocked if "Game" were not vastly more successful on the daughters of broken marriages and single mothers [DEM] as opposed to the daughters of intact families [GOP] - I'd like to think that GOP Dads have prepared their daughters to be able to mount a [more than adequate] defense [and even counter-offense] against these kinds of techniques. [Along those lines, if I were a GOP Dad and the father of 15/16/17-year-old girls, or even girls in college, then I would REQUIRE them to read Roissy, if for no other reason than to study the enemy and its techniques.]

E) Finally, one last note about the pervasive androgenousness [and outright homosexuality] of the actors in the Superbowl commercials - the other day it dawned on me that, from T99/Whiskey's point of view, the androgenous guys represent the betas, and the players on the field represent [or actually ARE, in real life] the alphas.

And then you have to ask yourself: Okay, who is pushing this pervasive agenda, and towards what end are they pushing it?

*On the other hand, to the extent that "Game" could be seen Jewish & Catholic sadistic misogyny seeping its way into WASP social mores, it represents a profoundly corrosive influence on our culture. But, again, that's the sort of thing that GOP Dads need to prepare their daughters for, before those daughters leave the nest.

"I guess I'll never get married now according to the article. I'm over 40. At least I won't have to put up with a woman nagging me just so I can get it once every week or 2."

You should learn how to lead women in some style of partnered dancing like ballroom, country, etc. This will mainly help you with women close to your age. It won't help you much if you want to bed twenty year old women.

What's really fascinating is to watch T99/Whiskey just throw all the Scots-Irish evangelical stuff right out the window when it comes to this subject - in favor of a full-blown, head-over-heels nihilism.

I wonder how he bridges that dichotomy [evangelical -vs- nihilist] in his own psyche [or if he's even aware of it in the first place]?

I hesitate to post a comment in this discussion. Almost every time that I have tried to post about sex and dating I have been censored. I don't mind so much. Everyone needs an editor and I sure my perceived web persona has benefited. But I'll try to sneak a few remarks under the radar again.

Getting women ain't hard because women want to be got. Apparently these beta males "work hard and act nice". They are rewarded then with rejection. There's a better way.

The Starz movie channel is now running a series called Sparticus. This series is in the tradition of Bob Cuccione's Caligula or the HBO Rome series. It is soft pornography. There is a lot of full frontal nudity and a lot of sweaty rutting. Apparently the public likes to believe that ancient Rome was where the action was. This is very much like the belief that only the Old West had all the shoot-em-up action. In fact you can go into any modern black or Latino ghetto and experience plenty of shootings. Similarly today we are living in the Golden Age of the orgy.

Last week I joined another sex club. This one is a nice clean well run operation rather like one of the nice clean marijuana operations available in the SF Bay Area.

I read on this blog about men who meet women who won't have sex with them. I meet women who beg me to organize an evening where they can be mounted by every man in the room. I meet women who like to 'entertain' at parties. There are a lot of private gathering that I don't get invited to.

Off Topic:I came here to the iSteve site expecting an article on the Heart Disease IQ connection that I saw in Drudge this morning.

Actually, it dawns on me that girls could study Roissy's techniques and use "Game" on you betas to get you to marry them.

Of course, then they'd be wearing the pants in the relationship, but at least maybe we'd get some live births out of it...

[Along those lines, there is a home-schooled evangelical girl down the street, who grew up to be just drop-dead gorgeous - kinduva cross between Julia Roberts & Rachel Weisz - and who is now, to the best of my knowledge, as a senior in college, still a virgin and still has never had a boyfriend. A girl like her could stand to learn something like "Game", just to get the boyfriends that she deserves. Hmmm, maybe I'll have to teach her...]

Has anyone considered how future advances in technology may change the balance of power?

Consider Artifical Humanoid Companions - these may be either very sophisticated robots, or created life-forms. AHCs could be programmed to emulate aspects of human behavior. It would be much easier for a female AHC to be attractive to men (physical beauty and loyalty) than for a male AHC to be atractive to women (socio-political power).

There are so many atrocious comments in this thread, so many comments that seem horribly disinterested in current reality....it's hard to know where to begin.

This is 2010, not 1985. Father's of young girls and women should look aside.

Educated, lovely, *well-bred* 20-something white girls speak of seeking a "baby-daddy" rather than a good husband and father. The hook-up is the norm -- sex is not something that happens after the third date, it's something that happens instead of dating. Yesterday it was a good night kiss. Today it is the girl taking a load in the face. Girls don't discuss among themselves whether they should go "all the way", but instead whether they should take it in the ass as well.

Monogamy is no longer de rigueur. Hypergamy is common as dirt. Imagine a world of irrelgious open marriage polygamy--this is basically today's dating market where a handful of high-status males (call them "alpha" or whatever) get most of the tail and the rest of the pack are going home empty handed to play on the xbox before breaking out the porn.

*Game* is an adaptation to this environment, a means of dealing with and attracting libidinous and hypergamous women. Casting dispersions at young men who latch on to *game* is....stupid. They're on the front lines and they know the tactics. If a guy on the front lines says that simply walking up to a girl and asking her out is only slightly more effective than putting a sign reading "kick-me" on his back, I'm inclined to believe him.

These guys didn't create the world we live in, they're adapting to it.

...and lastly....the screamer of all comments was something akin to, 'if these guys want nice girls they should go to church.' I think the PUAs would probably agree that church is a fertile playground, but not in the way the commentor imagined.

Anyway....I'm well aware of the very substantial "Single-Again" type of sunday school groups -- modern Christianity is going down with the rest of the culture, it's not an island unto itself.

Out of all the comments in this thread, Cliff Arroyo's was closest to the mark.

A few observations: Now that many young people meet up in singles bars and have one-night-stand-sex, it really does allow the top 10-20% of men the opportunity to sleep with several women per month while in their twenties.

Things were this way back in the seventies also, but most of those women did eventually tuck-it-in and marry a regular guy in later on the decade or early in the next decade. Now many of these gals don't and become cougars. Also many of the second-tier men do not want to risk marrying a mid-thirties female who has been a barfly for 10 years. He knows what the financial risks of divorce for him are (half his retirement savings, half his equity in his home, child support if they have a kid, alimony). In years past, the men in the middle-third and lower-third of the attractiveness scale could indeed go out and build a successful life, and they knew there would be women single in their later twenties or early thirties who would be available just as his best qualities were beginning to show, and he could safely marry one despite her past knowing she did eventually want a stable family and especially kids.

These days, however, a woman is just as likely to marry him, have some other guy's kids that she is cheating on him with, and divorce him so she can take part in the "divorce-theft-bonanza" that our laws put there for her, and continue to be a bar-cougar (with the help of a lot of plastic surgery) or woman on several internet dating sites still trolling for the thrills that just a few alphas were willing to give her when she was 22. Lots of these kinds of men deeply resent the financial risk they have to take to marry older women who have "been around the block" a little bit.

Tom Piatak, earlier in the thread, mentioned church girls. He is right there, they probably are the best investment of all, and a young man would do well to show up at church and church singles groups to snag a young woman brought up with morals, even if he personally didn't believe in the Bible's authenticity. He could fake it, sitting in church-grinning once a week for a good-girl who will be a great mom is worth it.

Final thought on the current situation:As long as the state gives the kids to the woman, and makes the man pay for it. As long as the state basically promises food and shelter to women in need (how many homeless women do you see? Women's shelters, housing programs, food-stamps, AFDC, etc all are guarantours of females with children primarily), women don't really *need* men financially, and therefore are "free" to behave as they want to..............which is often pretty bad.

But dont worry Whiskey, the non-hispanic white birthrate is still 1.9 children per female in the USA (but down to 1.54 in Canada), the meek shall indeed inherit the earth because the religous are experiencing replacement-level birthrates, even if the swpls are not. As Sailer has noted, who wins the future is who shows up for it. We will still have plenty of churches in 2075, but not nearly as many white hipsters.

As long as the PUAsphere makes it clear that their use of alpha and beta has no relation to traditional definitions in animal studies, it doesn't bother me.

I guess they don't make it clear enough, as the many PUA commenters here who are confusing the two attest.

An "alpha" in the PUA sense neend not be a leader of men. He also need not be intelligent, or good looking, or rich. There are plenty of poor, ugly scumbags out there who women find irristable. The PUAsphere, in fairness, does take note of this fact.

All of these "coalpha" "beta men" "men's rights" etc societies are taking the wrong approach.

They're just marking themselves, invalidating themselves as betas even further in women's eyes, confirming their suspicions.

To be perfectly frank, nothing short of forceful, violent, gang, predatory, military, etc type of organization and behavior is going to work for these guys. This has been confirmed over and over again by both primate ethology and human history.

I think an important variable however is the internet and ubiquitous porn. This really is a significant outlet where a lot of these beta males release their energy, which in previous eras may have been more immediately directed towards predatory behavior. But who knows, maybe this means that it'll just be pent up even more, or that greater info/knowledge and organization possibilities afforded by the internet means it'll be that much more catastrophic.

Also, the elites have to a certain extent preliminarily countered this by dividing up the population (importing foreigners en masse). A more diverse population means that frustrated betas divide along ethnic lines that will clash with each other, rather than be unified in opposing the elite, gov't, the "system" etc. Divide and conquer.

Although I always read Whiskey's posts with appreciation I simply can't believe that a moderately attractive beta who makes the effort to hold conversations with available women on a regular basis won't find one to bed down.

Piatak, whose relationship to the Catholic Church is roughly the same as that held by a Trokskyite to the Soviet Union (the true idea is good, it's just the execution that is lacking...), never seems to miss a chance to cheerlead for the Church. He writes:

"If the followers of Roissy were actually interested in getting married and starting a family, they would look for such women where they can be found: at church"

First, Roissy doesn't ask for or have "followers". He's simply a guy calling it like he sees it. Have you READ the NY Times article about the young women at UNC, Mr. Piatak. Please read it and take it all in, one sweet line after another, as these young women completely vindicate Roissy's view. Read Whiskey's comments about hypergamy. He's dead on.

Second, I did try to meet a girl at my local Catholic Church but sadly all the talk about how its a moral imperative that we let as many illegal Mexicans into the country as possible distracted me.

Yet another real-life teaching of the exists-in-reality Church that you ignore........

Hummy:The main problem of beta males in a free or liberalized society is they are too timid to ask a girl out on a date.

No the Beta types get laughed at while the alpha types get dates. Women are attracted to childish, pushy, and loud males instead of more mature and patient males. That is really the difference between Alpha and Beta males. It has nothing to do with being timid. All of the alpha males that I know get their way through impulse and intimidation but inside are insecure and childish and are easily to take advantage of and manipulate. This is true whether they are intellegent or not. The fact that most women are attracted to these types is probably because the women themselves are similiar or relate to these males because the males in their family are like this. Over time any population group where women mainly reproduce with alpha males will become increasingly childish and insecure through selective breeding and will move more toward idiocracy.

We should remember that there are alpha* and beta* women as well as men. I believe a recent survey (I could not re-find it online, so my figures may be slightly off) claimed that 12 percent of men and 8 percent of women over 25 were virgins. For the percentage of male virgins to be higher than that of female virgins is unprecedented for any pre-1960s society, except maybe ones that practiced cult prostitution, so this is a seismic development, but the numbers are not as dramatically far apart as Whiskey would expect.

(Two complicating factors:

1. There are probably some men who would refuse to admit virginity to a survey-taker, but how many? And furthermore, in the modern-day post-Sexual-Revolution culture, there are probably women who would not admit it either. Women might underreport down from five to three or whatever, but unfortunately, actual virginity would be regarded by most modern women to be as "weird" or "embarrassing" as for men.

2. Women do get married younger than men (I believe 25 is the current average), so there are doubtless, even in this decadent day, women over 25 who are not virgins because they are married, but were virgins up until then. This could partially cancel out refuse-to-admit it men.)

We shouldn't think that "single over 30" automatically equals "slut." When I hear updates on what people I used to know in high school or college are up to now, I note that many women I remember as being of less-than-sterling character, who one might have expected would end up in a Sex and the City lifestyle, are now married, and some have been for several years. What many of them have in common is that they are physically attractive, so when they wanted to get off the sexual merry-go-round, they did so with relative ease - they were alpha* women.

In contrast, many of those who are still unmarried are maybe not literally virgins (although how would I know without asking, and some must be), but shy and/or plain, so still without a lengthy romantic history - beta* women. (Others may have fallen into the career comes first trap, but did so by shutting down all romantic entanglements, not just marriage.)

Somewhere Whiskey can find a Whiskette if he looks hard enough (and stays out of New York City - if those statistics are even close to true, that city has truly hit Gomorrah status).

Golly, that was long. Sorry.

* Cicero's points as to why these terms are stupid are perfectly correct, but I am using them for convenience.

Not this blog too! The Roissy contagion spreads. Please Steve, resist the easy temptation. Anyone who subscribes to this alpha/beta nonsense will wake up about five years from now with a vague headache, wondering what the hell they were thinking. Sort of like folks who buy modern art.

All this theorizing and all these sweeping unsupported statements make me itchy. Fewer peopleare marrying, but I'd like to see the rest of these sweeping claims about the world backed up with some hard data.

My own rather geeky interests didn't keep mefrom having a pretty good time in college, fwiw, though that was 20 years ago. (I didn't try to pick up girls in bars, though.). I now live with a wife and three kids in a suburbfull of married couples raising kids. The picture of the world being described in this article has almost nothing in common with the world I observe and live in every day.

I scratch my head at the consternation all this sexual behaviour causes among conservatives. Didn't this happen back in the seventies, 30 to 40 years ago? Aren't you all a bit late with the complaints? It still winds you up after this length of time has passed? It's not as if conservatives back then didn't denounce it - Midge Decter even wrote a vicious attack on the libertine life of Janis Joplin in a New York Times' review of a biography published about her in the early 70s, expressing the heartfelt wish to throttle her to death (Joplin was already dead by the publication of the book so Decter was just retrospectively desiring an opportunity to kill her personally). So much for the neoconservatives only waking up now to the problem of promiscuity! The article itself points out the connection with the that decade of the contemporary scene - such as the revived popularity of the pick up artist mentor (plus the reference to astrology, tarot, crystals and the New Age chicks dug then and now). It makes a few factual errors - Roissy didn't invent Neuro-Linguistic Programming - it was Richard 'Frogs into Princes' Bandler who devised this self-improvement system back in the 1970s' (heyday of Werner Erhard's est) after studying the work of Fred Perls. Bandler boiled down Perls' psychotherapy technique into a model others could apply in order to realize their human potential. He called it mirroring. He made a good living during the last 30 years giving seminars on it (and was involved during the late 80s in a murder investigation featuring his coke dealer for a Steve Sailer style twist). Bandler at one point did describe himself as functionally a sociopath - he would study other people's techniques for manipulating people - figure them out and then use them or sell them to others. He calls it mirroring.

And where are the women on this site? You all do the choosing of partners -- this is all about you. Curvaceous, Dahlia, Cordelia, Victoria, all of you -- I want to hear what you think.

As a black woman, I find it interesting to follow these Alpha/Beta discussions, whose nuances really apply more to white culture than anything else. When I do read of some black professional man yapping about Alpha and Beta, it just sounds like more desire to emulate. I remember being amused years ago, when the "Yuppy" term came into vogue. Before long, there were those middle class blacks, who eagerly applied the term to themselves, coming up with the "Buppy" word. Me too, me too! Don't leave me out!

It would seem that, in order to study this phenomenon in a society, it would have to be a racially-culturally homogeneous one. Then an observer could detect who is and is not the dominant male type. These current discussions presume that we are talking about white society, which is understandable.

But mixed race-culture societies are more confusing, especially when, as in the case of black men, whose goal (for a host of reasons) is to go after the most desirable of the white females. When such a female succumbs to such a man's advances, what does it necessarily mean? Do such attractions really fit the Alpha/Beta story, or are other factors at play here? Do we claim that this black man is an Alpha, simply because this Alpha woman, who is desired by most white men, succumbed?

If Alpha/Beta is only about sexual prowess, as Roissy more than implies, that's one thing. But somehow, I think of an Alpha male more like that banker guy who was described in an earlier post -- one who is solidly confident in his dealings with men and women (a confidence that stems from his own cultural background), who has the power to intimidate. Is it this feature that was sensed by the highly preferred white woman who succumbed to the black man? I wonder.

I have not yet read Allen's article; perhaps she covers some of the race stuff.

Steve, I can just imagine the smile that must have crept across your face when you found this! Do you have a bet going with your wife or father about the number of comments this post will generate? LOL!

Seriously, I agree with TGGP that Jason Malloy is the best writer on these issues. I'll also add Inductivist as well. Together, they show that much of what is said in the PUA-sphere about the relations between the sexes just isn't backed up by the data: there isn't a multitude of men being left out of the romantic scene. They've been criticized for their quantitative approach, but it overwhelmingly concurs with my own observations and common sense.

So, what do I think is going on? The bleating of unsuccessful men who call themselves "betas" is analogous to the colored women who complain that society has conspired to put them at the bottom of the totem pole and white women at the top. In both cases, this construct is seen as environmentally/culturally caused and goes against what is best.

I believe that men can be loosely relegated to the following groups, but truthfully male behavior exists on continuums: Alpha Cad Alpha DadBeta Cad Beta Dad

In my definition of "alpha" it generally means a man who is a fighter, headstrong, someone you can depend on, generally successful because he has these qualities more than others. I strongly believe that for women and children, having an "alpha" for a husband or a father is preferable to a "beta".

I've been a reader here for years and like many others, found this movement forced upon us to contend with. I would say that I was a so-called alpha female who married an alpha male according to the criteria I've seen floating around: I was pretty, sought after by some of the best (and concordantly, the worst), and was paired off before I was an adult with the man I'm still married to many years later; I've been able to observe many types of men at their best and worst.

In my experiences I've observed the following:

*Rejected men never believe their rival was better; the judgement of the woman, or the woman herself, is always at fault. This applies to all men and alpha-beta-dad-cad status is irrelevant.

*Contra to PUA theory, alpha cads take rejection the worst. Do we associate docility with African-American men who have been "dissed"? I once rejected a man who was married and engaged in orgies with co-eds from the local university; he was a poor "artiste". He didn't just say, "whatever". He sought, and got, revenge against my fiance that landed him in jail for five years, his wife got one for being an accomplice.

*Game is a strategy for circumventing "female choice" in order to have sex with a better woman than otherwise could be gotten; it is very similar to rape, but uses mind control techniques instead of physical force. If successful "game" led only to dates and marriage, there would be no controversy. "A Natural History of Rape" was written before the PUA memes took off, but it can explain the pain of women who have been "gamed" and the consequential coming together of the "sisterhood" to fend against this new strategy that greatly reduce women's reproductive success (while improving the men's).

*"Nerds" do need to put down the video games and get serious about being a man; the best women go first and early. Worse, because of the ratio with male nerds, college may be the last time he can meet an interested girl. Once he is working professionally, he will often find that he rarely crosses paths with potential mates. It will get worse after college.

His post for the last D-Day anniversary, titled “Then and Now,” consisted of two photographs demonstrating women’s changing perception of what constituted an alpha male: a tough and battle-weary GI circa 1944 who looked as though he had just scaled the cliffs of the Pointe du Hoc and a particularly epicene-looking Mystery from his VH1 show, “peacocking” with eyeliner, soul patch, and goggles on top of his head.

I don't buy as big a change in Western women's preferences as the article suggests. Rudolph Valentino wowed them during the 1920s and he didn't look like a man who stormed German trenches in WW1. He wore eyeliner too - like a lot of silent movie stars. Back to the 70s again and we see Jagger, Bowie, Marc Bolan etc. Look at the 19th century and you find Swinburne and other romantic poets (Rosetti and the pre-Raphaelite school of art in England). You can trace it back to Goethe and The Sorrows of Young Werther published 1774 (the novel's protagonist kills himself after an unhappy experience in love, which inspired a real youth cult across Europe and copycat suicides). In fact, Werther seems the very model for contemporary beta males whining about the alphas getting everything. In Goethe's story, Werther falls in love with a young woman, Lotte, already betrothed to an older man, Albert, whom she marries and he finds he cannot live without her. So, in this case, monogamy leads to tragedy.

The guy lives in DC of all places. The easiest city to pick up transient, unrooted, strident, Type A, hussies in the US. A normal guy could get more a$$ than a toilet seat- no “game” required.

I live in DC and can testify this is absolutely true. Men have to beat off women with a stick here. Getting a relationship with a reasonably attractive, intelligent woman in that 5-years-younger age range is no problem at all. But you have to remember that the goal of PUA is to bed a different 21 year old every two weeks. That will always be a little trickier.

Typical DC gym rat uber-cube dweller.

LOL. If you're talking about Roissy, from the public photos of him he is definitely no gym rat.

"Yesterday it was a good night kiss. Today it is the girl [doing a degrading act]. Girls don't discuss among themselves whether they should go "all the way", but instead whether they should [commmit an unnatural act]."

Gamers, PUAs and "Betas" talk about how Betas can resort to porn and say it's a game-changer in a world of alpha-chasing sluts.

I personally find these Alpha and Beta discussions rather silly. I do not think this is how the Dating Game works. Certainly, there are more and less desirable men, but I don't think this is what is necessarily going on in the minds of women.

Here's how I see it.

Human beings are, in some ways, no different than single-cell organisms (although, being religious, I do believe that we, unlike other animals, do have rational souls). By this I mean that just as slime mold cells can clump together and disassociate, so do humans.

I have noticed for many years that women tend to form much tighter groups of friends than men do. Men hang out, but they tend to be brought together by similar hobbies or being in the same class or whatnot. But these male groups perform no role in actual mating, as may be surmised by any Super Bowl or LAN party.

As I have seen written on this very blog, women form the social bedrock for civilization. Women who go solo tend to be rather atypical, but most have a few close friends. So these "clumps" (cliques) of women also have their male hangers-on, mainly the boyfriends of the women and some of their friends, who form an increasingly diffuse association.

How this pertains to the Dating Game is this. Say a man catches the fancy of one of the "core" women in the clique. Then, the man finds himself interested in the woman. She rejects him or otherwise plays hard to get initially, but meanwhile, positive PR goes around the clique about the man, all her friends become his friends also, and he ever so slowly gets "absorbed" into the clique.

Solo women work rather differently, by trying to make friends with all the friends of the targeted man. The amusing thing about this is that if the man is already "spoken for", she will succeed only with his male friends; the females in the clique will shun her.

What happens if two women from competing cliques like the same man? Well, they will both try to "absorb" him, but if it gets out that he fancies one of the women, the rejected woman's clique will shut him out, which, naturally enough, will hasten the man's absorption into the other clique.

What about women sleeping around? As I see it, women who do this are often involved with a man who is also sleeping around, or has recently been cheated on, or something else traumatic has occurred; or else, something else weird is going on between herself and her boyfriend. Most attractive young women have a boyfriend and/or (!) a man she is interested in. These women are not romantically interested in the men they are sleeping with; in fact, they may despise them, and are doing so only to get back at their cheating significant other. For example, I have read that Heidi Klum married Seal to get back at Flavio Briatore after he left her. Black men are very often the targets of these resentful women; white women who are happy and undamaged tend not to sleep with trashy black men.

So if an attractive, intelligent white man finds that no woman wants to have one-night-stands with him, he should take that as a compliment. In fact, I have run into a few black and other nonwhite women who have wanted to sleep around with me... because they despise white men and want to use us to get back at THEIR men!

Since it's my birthday this weekend, I'm in a good mood and I'm going to give Whiskey credit:

"That's pretty funny. People here like to pretend that "the Black Ghetto just happened" or was always that way, when the truth is that Black negative success behaviors become super-charged over time, just as British lower class White behaviors did"

I scratch my head at the consternation all this sexual behaviour causes among conservatives. Didn't this happen back in the seventies, 30 to 40 years ago? Aren't you all a bit late with the complaints? It still winds you up after this length of time has passed?

I'm inclined to think that you're talking about two different sets of people. Anyone complaining back in the seventies is presumably at least in their sixties by now.

You should also read the article. It describes the sharp drop in the percentage of married people since the seventies - a very bad thing for conservatives, whose electoral power is concentrated among married couples.

"Befor females had "careers", a fellow with a job looked like a good catch, beta or not."

Before women's lib, women where different, true, but understand that men were different as well. Men were socialized to marry women early in life, and stay with them for life, there was a stigma to divorce and large financial penalties for running away with one's secretary such has LIFETIME alimony. The laws change with time and they generally do a good job with them.

As for the Alpha/Beta thing, I think there are some huge misconceptions here; someone earlier said something to the effect of "a man's alpha is different then a women's alpha..." Not true, mainly because I've never heard a woman refer to a man as an "alpha." The so-called "women's alpha" is actually a "cad" or a "roué." Most women do fantasize about those type of guys and read harlequin romances about them, but most women do not particularly want to be with them; they are afraid of them.

Think of it like this; compare John Wayne and Warren Beatty and put them in the same hypothetical job, doesn't matter what job it is, make-up artist, bull rider, engineer, whatever; In ANY position, Beatty gets more trim, and in ANY position, Wayne gets more respect. Wayne in fact gets more respect from men, and the same guys probably consider Warren a joke and a wimp, and Beatty probably works for Wayne. The Roissy, Mystery guys that you consider "Alphas" are really jokes, and vessels of entertainment for women.

There was a great passage in "The Godfather" (book not movie) in which The Don is comparing his two sons: Sonny and Michael are considered "real men," Fredo runs a Casino in Las Vegas, sleeps with all of the showgirls, and Don Corleone derisively refers to him as a "ladies man" in Italian slang.

Moral of the story, if you guys want to study game, work on being John Wayne, not Warren Beatty, you'll still get laid and other men won't consider you a joke.

One other thought, it's not the problem of women, "betas" of the world that you don't have girlfriend, it is your fault, chiefly because you are arrogant and think that you deserve a girlfriend who looks like Scarlett Johanssen. Sorry. A 300 pound dork can get a girlfriend at any time, the thing is she will probably be a 200 pound dork, that much has not changed with time.

"Women are attracted to childish, pushy, and loud males instead of more mature and patient males."

10% truth in a statement does not make it a true statement.

The problem with you guys is not that you are "betas" it is that you are "wimps". That is a totally different ballgame.

Midge Decter even wrote a vicious attack on the libertine life of Janis Joplin in a New York Times' review of a biography published about her in the early 70s, expressing the heartfelt wish to throttle her to death (Joplin was already dead by the publication of the book so Decter was just retrospectively desiring an opportunity to kill her personally). So much for the neoconservatives only waking up now to the problem of promiscuity! The article itself points out the connection with the that decade of the contemporary scene - such as the revived popularity of the pick up artist mentor

Let me throw some facts at you from anthropologist Peter Frost.

------------------------

The period from the mid-1960s to the late 1970s was one in which there was a shortage of males at median age of first marriage. From the perspective of sexual selection pressures, this period was one of diminished levels of competition among males for qualities sought by females because there was an abundant supply of females. Similarly, females were less able to be “choosy” because there was a shortage of males. (Pedersen, 1991).

For men, this was a great time to be alive. It wasn’t the music that made the times so great. It was the abundance of young nubile women and the lack of competition from other men.

Then things changed:

Beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s, sex ratios tipped over from male scarcity to parity and then to a relative excess of males. In 1991, plurality of males is clear in the age combinations when first marriage normatively occurs, and this situation will persist through the end of the century. (Pedersen, 1991)

This male surplus varies by age bracket. When Davis and van den Oever (1982) examined the ratio of single men to single women in nine developed countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Hungary Japan, Norway, and Yugoslavia), they found male surpluses up to and into the early 30s

--------------------------

As annoying as the "game" people are, they are responding to a real phenomenon. Badly, no doubt, but they're not imagining things.

This also explains why men who came of age in the sixties and seventies are going "What? You can't find women? What the hells wrong with you"? Their own experience was completely the opposite, back in the day.

In addition to being delusional, Whiskey is severely deficient in reading comprehension. The college girl is saying she and her friends would consider dating about half the males at her college (20%/40%; not 20%).

Nor do women share identical tastes in men.

Whiskey,

As people keep telling you, you need to adjust your standards. There's at least one demographic where I suspect you'll have a better shot than many men. The least attractive women respond better to the least attractive men than to the most attractive men:

One interesting thing seems to be going on here: when the best-looking men write the worst-looking women, their message success rate takes a big hit. The knee-jerk response would be to somehow chalk it up to hunky spammers, but we very carefully control for that in these articles, and in any event why would better-looking girls be drastically more susceptible to it? It seems to be some kind of self-confidence thing.

"According to Patrick F. Fagan's survey of studies titled “The Effects of Pornography on Individuals, Marriage, Family and Community,” users of pornography tend to have “distorted perceptions of social reality” and are more likely to overestimate the incidence of illicit sexual activity, promiscuity and sexual perversions."

'Contemporary society is alarmingly sexualized, and the traditional sexual taboos of a well-functioning society have broken down. Nearly 2/3rds of United States high-school students have had sexual intercourse by grade 12...In 2007, 20 percent of U.S. girls in grade 12 have had sexual intercourse with four or more partners....'

"That's pretty funny. People here like to pretend that "the Black Ghetto just happened" or was always that way, when the truth is that Black negative success behaviors become super-charged over time, just as British lower class White behaviors did"

What, precisely, is meant by "super-charged over time?" And how is that phrase different from "the Black Ghetto just happened?"

I don't think the black ghetto 'just happened' just like I don't think the British white underclass just happened. I think it was enabled by welfare and civil rights laws that incentivized US black women and UK chav females to choose cads over dads.

As people keep telling you, you need to adjust your standards. There's at least one demographic where I suspect you'll have a better shot than many men. The least attractive women respond better to the least attractive men than to the most attractive men: -- n/a--

Well, this is certainly (a HUGE) part of the problem -- just like the Whiskey's of society constantly bemoan that (virtually) all women HATE HATE HATE "beta" males... they tend to forget that many guys, especially those in teir social cohort, will typically overlook, or denigrate average women as well!

You know, dudes like Testy think so highly of themselves, most likely in the 'intelligence' department -- that they assume, or feel entitled to, nothing less than a 'hottie' (i.e. - an exceptionally above average woman).

Ah, what the "Lake Wobegonization' of sex and relationships has done to the mental perceptions of so many an average man and woman's sense of entitlement and expectations that they have of and from the opposite sex.

Last week I joined another sex club. This one is a nice clean well run operation rather like one of the nice clean marijuana operations available in the SF Bay Area.

I read on this blog about men who meet women who won't have sex with them. I meet women who beg me to organize an evening where they can be mounted by every man in the room. I meet women who like to 'entertain' at parties. There are a lot of private gathering that I don't get invited to.

*

I hesitate to post a comment in this discussion. Almost every time that I have tried to post about sex and dating I have been censored. -- Albertosaurus

One other thought, it's not the problem of women, "betas" of the world that you don't have girlfriend, it is your fault, chiefly because you are arrogant and think that you deserve a girlfriend who looks like Scarlett Johanssen. Sorry. A 300 pound dork can get a girlfriend at any time, the thing is she will probably be a 200 pound dork, that much has not changed with time.--

Out-of-the-park homerun by the venerable 'Truth' himself!!

Cordelia -- excellent comments and calling out on the 'selective morality' of those dudes who attack women but practice their own version of (male) hypergamy themselves.

Ooh, that was just so perfect and spot-on like a laser beam to their hypocrisy.

corvinus has a good take on the issue! From my experience I second that.Best way for a desperado like Whiskey is to get inolved with a female clique. If you don't repulse them, they start passing you around their single freinds.

That discussion you link to is made more interesting by the fact that Jason Malloy came out the better in the comments section versus Peter Frost.

I thought they were talking past each other. In general the guys at Gene Expression strike me as clever but not intelligent. Did you see Razibs embarrassing collaboration with Ron Unz in The American Conservative? I haven't seen such egregious data mangling since the "global warming" fiasco.

I dunno, the PUA bloggers are getting part of the puzzle but they're missing something important.

They are describing the behavior of desirable women. They describe my romantic history almost exactly: I fooled around with as many high-social-status men I could get my pretty little hands on with no regard for their suitability as fathers (although I did a lot of imagining) and I never got much exclusivity out of any of them; and then when I wanted to marry and have children, I chose a lower-social-status man with a good job and he better be faithful and he knows it. If I had a lower maternal drive and a more irrational belief in the duration of my good looks, I would probably still be chasing the alphas at 35 and crying in my cosmos about it. This is a real thing, the PUA's have spotted it.

But there are modern phenomena they fail to account for. I give you:

http://www.hotchickswithdouchebags.com/

This is not just an internet thing. I see this every time I leave the house. For example, I live near a lakeshore, and in the summer the local teenagers are on display. The young women are gorgeous; the young men look like they are made of dough. You can see the same thing on the blogs of young married religious women, particularly Mormons: the 20-something wives are toned, groomed and lovely; their husbands don't tuck in their shirts or stand up straight and are carrying puppy fat. I have a teenage male relative who has zits, is uncouth, and is kind of a lump; he has a harem. A harem of pretty girls with brains and plans, too!

Young men have really gotten less desirable. I have pictures of my old high school and college paramours and I just don't see young men like that around and about, ever. Is it all the soy in our diet? Birth control hormones in the water? Anyone have any clue?

A lot of older posters are really clueless about how bad things are among people in the their 20's now. This is not like the dating scene in the 80's. Attractive young women are NOT mainly looking for rich or successful men but men with selfish, narcissistic and even psychopathic personality traits.

Most of the men in their 20's who are doing well with women would be described as lazy, immature and childish by older people. Think the "unemployed DJ who sleeps on his friend's couch" that Roissy talked about, not some asshole 80's stockbroker.

Dahlia said: Seriously, I agree with TGGP that Jason Malloy is the best writer on these issues. I'll also add Inductivist as well. Together, they show that much of what is said in the PUA-sphere about the relations between the sexes just isn't backed up by the data: there isn't a multitude of men being left out of the romantic scene.

Well, now that's interesting! I'm gonna have to go have a look at those discussions. Thanks to TGGP & Dahlia for pointing them out.

Anonymous said: What these guys like Devlin & Roissy need to realize is that women have no inherent sense of morality, and that if they are not taught morality [by the men in their lives, like Devlin & Roissy], then they will never learn morality....

Heh. I call b*llsh*t on this one. Women have no inherent sense of morality? Show me the data.

(Seems to me that I read some where that young men, between the ages of ca. 15-25, commit the most homicides. Do I have that right? Well, then -- I guess we could say that men also have no inherent sense of morality then!

Sheesh. What rubbish.)

Anoymous also said: *On the other hand, to the extent that "Game" could be seen Jewish & Catholic sadistic misogyny seeping its way into WASP social mores, it represents a profoundly corrosive influence on our culture.

Catholic? Where does Catholic come into it? From what I understand, "Mystery" and his mentor Ross (“How to Get the Women You Desire Into Bed”) Jeffries are Jewish.

Anonymous said: What these guys like Devlin & Roissy need to realize is that women have no inherent sense of morality, and that if they are not taught morality [by the men in their lives, like Devlin & Roissy], then they will never learn morality....

Heh. I call b*llsh*t on this one. Women have no inherent sense of morality? Show me the data.

(Seems to me that I read some where that young men, between the ages of ca. 15-25, commit the most homicides. Do I have that right? Well, then -- I guess we could say that men also have no inherent sense of morality then!

Sheesh. What rubbish.)

Anoymous also said: *On the other hand, to the extent that "Game" could be seen Jewish & Catholic sadistic misogyny seeping its way into WASP social mores, it represents a profoundly corrosive influence on our culture.

Catholic? Where does Catholic come into it? From what I understand, "Mystery" and his mentor Ross (“How to Get the Women You Desire Into Bed”) Jeffries are Jewish.

Anonymous said: Along those lines, there is a home-schooled evangelical girl down the street, who grew up to be just drop-dead gorgeous - kinduva cross between Julia Roberts & Rachel Weisz - and who is now, to the best of my knowledge, as a senior in college, still a virgin and still has never had a boyfriend.

Maybe she doesn't want to have just any old boyfriend. Maybe she has some standards that just haven't been met yet.

ricpic said: This may be naive of me, but all those betas who are lucky enough to find women who'll settle for them...how do they stand the humiliation?

Why do ya'll assume that ALL women are uninterested in so-called beta males and that, therefore, if a so-called beta is married, his wife must have "settled" for him?

I wanted a so-called beta male (i.e. a geek) -- and I'm happy to say I got one! I always wanted a so-called beta male 'cause I'm a geek myself.

While I can find some real alpha males attractive (like Truth's John Wayne alpha male example), I could never figure out what on earth an alpha and I would talk about for the rest of our lives. I mean, what on earth would we have in common? I always wanted a guy who I could related to and that definitely had to be a so-called beta male.

I'm sure there are still other geek girls out there like me. Maybe ya'll need to start going to some cosplay conventions. Get yourselves some geek girls! ;-)

To expand on my previous point that physical attractiveness is the most important factor that will land you a hot chick: the most oft-cited source to "prove" that Game works is the hotchickswithdouchebags.com website. I'm sad to say, but the guys you see on that page ARE considered physically attractive by girls. You and I can no better understand that than their consideration of Twilight as a literary masterpiece. But that's the way it it.

If you really want to prove your point, instead of referencing a website that shows tanned, muscular guys with gelled hair and gaudy jewelry posing with hot chicks, why don't you find a website that has fat, pizza-faced guys with hot chicks? You can't. That's because they don't exist.

Troofie and I agree! Hail of frogs and the Charles River turning to blood tomorrow...

As the Mellencamp song goes, I ain't good lookin' but I ain't shy.I punch WAY out of my weight class in the dating ring because all the mouth-breathers out there almost push the ladies onto my lap, or the lap of any guy with the intelligence and wit to put up with the rules of the modern dating game. Of course, unlike the Roissy crew, you really should be in it for the long haul and not a pump & dump.

And hit the gym; lots of women in decent shape all in one place. The bonus for me has always been the women who wet their knickers over real strong guys, which is the only metric for alphahood in the weight room.

The key problem is, if you are taught to treat women as equals, and to respect women, that is 100% right in the workplace.

However, how do you transition from no chivalry at work to chivalry on a date?

I have a hard time seeing how respecting women in the workplace - presumably meaning things like not treating them as incompetent at their jobs, and avoiding engaging in unwelcome sexual advances - is not incompatible with respecting women when you're on a date.

I wonder why more men dont go for mail-order bride from Asia or Ukraine ?

Why should they? If a man really wants to avoid American women, for whatever reason, maybe he should expatriate. Bring a woman to the US to marry, and there's a high chance that before long, she'll adopt American norms. And even if she doesn't, it's almost certain her daughters (and sons) will. (I say this in regard to all the immigrants I've known, from New Zealand, from the UK, China, India, the Czech republic, Lebanon, Korea, Iran, South Africa, and other countries.

For example, I live near a lakeshore, and in the summer the local teenagers are on display. The young women are gorgeous; the young men look like they are made of dough.

I think you've inadvertently hit on one part of the problem. The average young woman today really does seem to think of herself and her fellow young women as being better (smarter, nicer, better looking) than the average young man. That's a recipe for a lot of unhappiness between the sexes.

They ARE better looking, they don't just think they are. If you don't find males sexually appealing you are not going to see this. Young women mature faster of course, which explains why they come off as smarter and more future-oriented than their male counterparts.

I wonder if the problem is allowing so much unrestrained socialization between the sexes in adolescence. A young woman of 16 is not the peer of a young man of 16.

They ARE better looking, they don't just think they are. If you don't find males sexually appealing you are not going to see this.

Can you elaborate on that? By "they" you mean "young women", right?

I'm pretty sure that the average young woman is, by definition, average looking. It's true that I'm largely blind to whatever constitutes good looks in men, but you seem to consider yourself an expert judge of attractiveness in both men and women. How does that work?

If you regard the average woman as being more attractive than the average man, have you considered the possibility than you're not hetrosexual?

Regarding hypergamy: from an anthro-cultural perspective, in the traditional South Asian (Desi, Indian) caste system, women were allowed to marry up but not down. Men could marry down, but not up. The reason for this is that the bride lives in the home of her husband's family and takes on the caste of that family, and is expected to conform to their traditions, habits, food taboos, etc. If she marries a lower caste, she would be degrading her higher caste culture.

For a man, who does not live in the home of his bride's family, it's OK to marry down, because he has nothing he has to conform to.

Re:

[Women's idea of "Alpha Male" is different from men's. Bill Gates, General Petraeus, Mack Brown, and Peyton Manning are men's ideas of Alpha males: leaders of men, who achieve difficult tasks and form successful patronage networks. Women's ideas of Alpha males are: the Situation, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and guys from the "Bachelor." Defined solely by how many women find them arousing. There can be overlap, such as Tom Brady, but generally the two are distinct.]

Same in the reverse. Women who are considered "alpha" by men (HB10 club hos)are not the same who women look up to as "alpha".

Maybe it is easier (or more natural) for women than non-gay men to look pretty?

Pretty? Sure. But groomed and attractive? That's MUCH easier for a young man.

Is it?

I see what you mean, men need less maintenance than women; but OTOH, it is less effort for women to maintain themselves.

The female (and gay male) brain just works that way. Even female geeks are not nearly as geeky as their male counterparts. Better innate fashion sense, not too focused, able to handle more pain / inconvenience for the sake of appearance...

"The main problem of beta males in a free or liberalized society is they are too timid to ask a girl out on a date. Beta males would do better in a traditional system where marriages were arranged by parents or by group pressure."

YOU ARE SO RIGHT about this. Go to India and one of the first things you will notice is that practically HALF of the men there would never be able to attract a wife if they had to.

They don't have to though, because almost EVERYONE is guaranteed a spouse via the arranged marriage system.

Many of the Western women who marry Indian guys marry men who, if it weren't for arranged marriage, would NEVER be able to attract a woman in their own country, but because Western women are not clued into what Indian women find desirable, they marry these guys and think they got a "catch" and in many caess, if you compare them to American men or British men, they indeed did find a catch.

But by Indian womens' standards they would be just "eh" or "so-so" or not even on the radar.

Some of the posters here say women only want 20% of the men. The article says that 66% of men ages 35 to 44 are married. Care to reconcile the different numbers?

First, at this middle-age group you'll find beta males that became more attractive with age and extra income. Hypergamy aside, most women will eventually settle.

Second, this social decay is a more recent trend and it affects the current generation more significantly than prior generations. So its possible in the social norms of the past 66% of the men were alpha, but in today's generation only 20% of men qualify.

Let me digress. My grandparents were married into their seventies, but they are now dead. My parents generation had more marital turmoil, and I'm unmarried.

I still feel some pressure to aspire to til death do you part, but my kids, when I have them, will not have that example since my grandparents are dead.

They will see single mothers in Hollywood, and short term celebrity marriages and think that is normal since that is what mom and dad are also doing.

"I wonder if the problem is allowing so much unrestrained socialization between the sexes in adolescence. A young woman of 16 is not the peer of a young man of 16."

I have a male relative who was pressured into having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend (he was 16 too). He just wanted a friend a girl whom he could be emotionally intimate with, not sex. He had what I would call a "healthy fear" of teenage sex and it's possible results: unwanted preganancy and STDs. Plus he was probably nervous about how he would perform and all. Plus he's a good religious boy.

However, all of that does not take into account that SUPPOSEDLY teenage boys are alot hornier than teenage girls.

On average I'm wondering who wants sex more - teen guys or teen girls?

The scary thing is high status men also fall victim to hypergamy. By now its obvious women will not tolerate a relationship with a guy that is below her in status even if that guy is practically an aristocrat.

Visually imagine a guy that is young, well connected, old money, socially established, and generally good looking. I'll put a face to that image: Topper Mortimer.

He married a lady named Tinsley and while he brought her into New York Society (as Mrs Mortimer) she rose in prominence and soon eclipsed her husband in stature. As opposed to Mrs Mortimer, she became Tinsley.

Well, this guy is in the top 99.5% of American men, but that wasn't good enough for her. She's now dating a prince.

"From what I understand, "Mystery" and his mentor Ross (“How to Get the Women You Desire Into Bed”) Jeffries are Jewish."

Mystery is ueber-Aryan. He's a 6'5", blond with high cheekbones and his real name is Erik von Markovik. Neil Strauss (aka 'Style'), Mystery's Boswell and a PUA guru in his own right, and Ross Jeffries are indeed Jewish.

Maybe she doesn't want to have just any old boyfriend. Maybe she has some standards that just haven't been met yet.

No, I get the sense that there is very much a DEM/GOP divide in the dating scene.

Again: I would be very, very surprised if the kinds of chicks that Roissy hits on were not overwhelmingly DEM daughters of single mothers [never-married], broken families [with Dad rarely or never in the picture], or stridently atheist parents [still married but who kinda accidentally stumbled into giving birth against their better judgment].

My impression is that the social scene for GOP/conservative/religious kids, from stable two-parent households, is very, VERY different from what Roissy is describing - to the extent that the GOP/conservative/religious kids probably have a very difficult time finding anything fun to do at all on the modern university campus.

Anyway, my stock advice to the conservative girls is to go to nearby military towns and head for the bars and country clubs where the young officers like to congregate.

When you grow up in a small WASP town, and then head off to the big city for the first time, observing the cruelty [and outright sadism] with which Jewish & Catholic guys treat their women is simply shocking.

Anyway, that's the ugly side of "Game" - when it goes beyond merely asserting your masculinity and keeping a firm upper hand with your woman, and instead degenerates into a really ugly mysogynistic nihilism.

Whiskey:"White working and middle classes acting pretty much like Black Ghetto people, as already has happened in Britain's White working (and now Middle classes)."

Here in the UK our white working and middle classes practice long-term stable unmarried cohabitation. Typically the father is present in the home, though he exercises far less of a social control function than traditionally. His main role is often to ferry his 14 year old daughter to and from parties, and then complain next day at work that the noise from her bedroom of her having sex all night with her boyfriend kept him awake, so he's very tired.

The single parent lifestyle typical of the US black ghetto is common only among the white non-working underclass, and it is forced on them by the welfare system which heavily penalises cohabitation, including marriage. There is a lot of surreptitious cohabitation, but if they did it publicly the State would take away a large chunk of their welfare money, and possibly prosecute them for fraud.

I think you've inadvertently hit on one part of the problem. The average young woman today really does seem to think of herself and her fellow young women as being better (smarter, nicer, better looking) than the average young man. That's a recipe for a lot of unhappiness between the sexes. -- Flenser--

Us women are more egocentric and narcissistic than we ever used to be, according to extensive research by two leading psychologists.

More of us have huge expectations of ourselves, our lives and everyone in them.

We think the universe resolves around us, with a deluded sense of our own fabulousness, and believe we are cleverer, more talented and more attractive than we actually are.

We have trouble accepting criticism and extending empathy because we are so preoccupied with ourselves.

...

Am I making you angry by telling you this? It figures. Narcissistic or egotistical women do have an overwhelming sense of entitlement and arrogance.

Of course, I joke, but researchers say there is growing evidence of an epidemic of ego-itis everywhere.

Once a traditionally male syndrome, narcissism generally begins at home and in schools, where children are praised excessively, often spoiled rotten and given the relentless message that they are 'special'.

Psychology professors Jean Twenge and Keith Campbell analysed studies on 37,000 college students in 2006.

In a survey, 30 per cent of them said they believed they should get good grades simply for turning up.

And it's not just about how intelligent they think they are. In the workplace, in friendships, even in motherhood, the pervading culture seems to have become one of competitiveness, superiority and one-upmanship.

But the sphere in which the signs of self-obsession are perhaps most obvious, and the consequences most immediately felt, is the dating one.

In a recent magazine article, four women in their late 20s and 30s shared their thoughts about why they were still single. A 39-year-old beauty director claimed to be too independent for a relationship.

A 38-year-old music agent attributed her single status to the fact she was an alpha female - independent, feisty, strong-minded, high-achieving and intimidating.

...

'They tend to be in their 30s, and there is a wide discrepancy between how they perceive themselves and how others see them.

'They are often very plain, but see themselves as being absolutely fabulous, exceptional people. ...

Anonymous said: "When you grow up in a small WASP town, and then head off to the big city for the first time, observing the cruelty [and outright sadism] with which Jewish & Catholic guys treat their women is simply shocking."

Oh, ok. I thought you were saying that Game was a Catholic thing.

Mind you, I grew up Catholic and never, ever experienced the cruelty or sadism you describe. But maybe you're referring to Latinos or Italians.

When you grow up in a small WASP town, and then head off to the big city for the first time, observing the cruelty [and outright sadism] with which Jewish & Catholic guys treat their women is simply shocking.

It's no worse than the cruelty with which WASP parents treat their sons.

When you grow up in a small WASP town, and then head off to the big city for the first time, observing the cruelty [and outright sadism] with which Jewish & Catholic guys treat their women is simply shocking.

Wow, perspective is everything, I guess. Growing up in a matriarchal Catholic family, I'm still taken aback by how WASP women, to me, seem to never ever ever get what they want, but must continually defer to males to keep the peace.

How funny rightwingers are, as they cling to their fantasy of their stable, morally upright families. Yet, just look at reality. The divorce rate among this group is through the roof, as it is for the libs. And, laughingly, take a look at their role models -- those most admired at the top of their clan. That Limbaugh freak has one of the most disgraceful marital backgrounds -- Married and divorced THREE times, and with the last wife, he wound up being her FOURTH spouse. Who the hell would be somebody's FOURTH marriage partner? Now, how many vows of "until death do us part" between them does that make?

This freak has never had children, although his married minions seem to feel they need his advice on this score. When returning from a visit to the Caribbean, had a supply of a viagra-like substance, which he, of course did not make use of, since he is a morally upright man. (And don't tell me about him now being "single," since moral rightwingers, according to themselves, are not supposed to be promiscuous.)

And that other sterling role model -- Mme. Sarah Palin herself. She has done more to promote sexual promiscuity among young people, thanks to her fervent celebration of that unmarried, pregnant daughter of hers. What wonderful models of parenting and stable family live -- both Limbaugh and Palin!

> On average I'm wondering who wants sex more - teen guys or teen girls? <

Teen girls. They're physically ready and emotionally stout enough to have a little one (on average!) though not financially ready.

All the sex in high school was initiated by the girls. There was one exception, a tall fellow with large yellow teeth who shuffled around whispering "Let's f - !" to girls he had just met. He got less action than the rest of us, though...but those girls were barracudas. And the uglier they were, the more boy-crazy. Bad scene. I might add this was a very rural high school.

Mind you, I grew up Catholic and never, ever experienced the cruelty or sadism you describe.

I suppose that's possible - although unlikely - statistically speaking, it's more likely that it's happened to you your whole life, but you've become so inured to it that you don't even realize it's there.

There is an underlying foundation of cruelty to Catholic & Jewish social life which is really shocking to the naive young WASP kid who encounters it for the first time.

As a for-instance, WASPS do not do sarcasm - ever!!! - sarcasm is just completely foreign to the small-town WASP experience.

> sarcasm is just completely foreign to the small-town WASP experience <

I wish. It was never completely foreign. E.g. read the account of childhood taunts in The Magnificent Ambersons.

My grandmother, a former flapper but a Southerner, did once require the word "sarcasm" explained to her; and how it applied to Spider Man's zingers in the comic books I was reading. Odd thing, looking back on it.

We know that there is more interpersonal friction in heterogeneous societies than in homogeneous ones.

The sourest people I ever met were rural WASPs. The most evil and aggressive were urban non-WASPs.

Roissy is taking some abuse here. Roissy is to dating/relationship advice what Jim Cramer is to investment advice: only a fool would follow either one of them word for word, but they both get ratings and can be entertaining. Personally I find Roissy much less annoying and a lot funnier. They are clearly intelligent people and you can sometimes learn something about their area of... uh...expertise.

Typically the father is present in the home, though he exercises far less of a social control function than traditionally. His main role is often to ferry his 14 year old daughter to and from parties, and then complain next day at work that the noise from her bedroom of her having sex all night with her boyfriend kept him awake, so he's very tired."

Piatak, whose relationship to the Catholic Church is roughly the same as that held by a Trokskyite to the Soviet Union (the true idea is good, it's just the execution that is lacking...), never seems to miss a chance to cheerlead for the Church.

Amusingly, one could probably make the case that Prods (and atheists, and Jews) are in Roissy-speak, "Beta" relative to the "Alpha" Catholic Church, what with their enshrined sense of persecution and eternal loathing/envy of the Church, while it for its part simply chugs manfully along regardless, or at least it did prior to Vatican II.

On a more serious note though, I can't say I've ever observed any "Catholic" misogyny. That strikes me as being more of an ethnic characteristic than a religious one.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.